Ed Milliband & The Unions

[IBA]

Is this a genuine attempt to sever the bond Labour has with the Unions, or as the Tories are saying is it all just a scam?

What's not clear is is Ed proposing to change the rules so that it is easy for individuals to opt from the situation where their Union fees are funding the Labour Party?

I certainly would be in favour of opting out as I don't want to be funding Labour , if I did I would join the Labour party itself.
I hope that Ed's proposals actually lead to both main parties fundamentally altering how they are funded so that they can represent the whole country rather than specific interest groups.

 

[StroudGrecian]

I heard on the radio today a vaguely sensible riposte to your eminently sensible POV, IBA, which ran something like this: it is right and necessary for the unions to be influential within the Labour movement, as without this the 'political class' (which I assume includes all politicians) will be completely adrift from the viewpoint of the working man, and thus the serious and increasing disengagement of the masses with politics would become terminal.

No, I wasn't entirely convinced either, but I appreciated the point that being made.

 

[Mr Jinx]

So it's the Gonk vs the likes of McCluskey & Kenney.

I think I know who will win. And it ain't the Gonk.

 

[LOG]

Ed Milliband & The Unions sounds like a really bad band.

 

[StroudGrecian]

Ed Milliband & The Unions sounds like a really bad band.

He does come from a musical family of course, his other brother being the famous Steve.

 

[fred binneys head]

He does come from a musical family of course, his other brother being the famous Steve.

You're such a joker.

 

[Jason H]

While I find it hilarious Millipede appears to be on a suicide mission (call the magazine that backed him "the bottom of the barrel" and now go to war with the union that got him the job), I agree with the notion of making the link between union membership fee and donation to Labour an "opt in" - Trade Unions are Trade Unions, not Political Unions. They serve to protect the rights of their members in the workplace, NOT to decide who ru(i)ns the country.

By making the link to Labour automatic you are at once excluding those of a blue/yellow/mauve (whatever UKIP's colours are!)/green/whatever political hue from membership. Great inclusivity and parity there.

 

[Ariel Manto]

I agree Jase , but doesn't this policy lead us down the path of the delicate subject of Political Funding for the Conservative party too , if the law were to place limits on individual donations wouldn't the Tories stand to lose more financially than Labour?

 

[Jason H]

I agree Jase , but doesn't this policy lead us down the path of the delicate subject of Political Funding for the Conservative party too , if the law were to place limits on individual donations wouldn't the Tories stand to lose more financially than Labour?

I'm not sure there should necessarily be limits on financial donations, and to be frank I don't give too much of a fig if size of donation buys a bit of influence - that's up to the parties (of all colours) really to decide amongst themselves.

What was utterly criminal though was that under the last government the Unions received a large chunk of government money. Which was of course channelled into...the Labour party. That to me is corruption.

Another option re: funding has been to suggest central funding for the political parties. This I disagree with 100%.

 

[East Devon Clown]

I don't give too much of a fig if size of donation buys a bit of influence

Of course, if you can buy influence, that takes influence away from those who can't afford it. So that's alright then, why should they have a say in a democracy?

I suppose you are OK with cash for questions as well.